נתסו, גם אלה אשר להיתי יועילו, היינו חברי שחשבתי שהם יהיו לי לתועלת נגד היותי, והם יעזרו לי בצרה, הם בעצמם נתצו את נתיבתי הטובה דהיינו מה שהרשיעו אותו והסירו ממנו צדקתו וכבודו ולא עזר למו לא נמצא להם עוזר אותי, כי בהפך נהפכו לי לאויבים:
Turning to his comforters, Job once again accuses them of faithlessness and a lack of sympathy for his great suffering.
לֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against members of your people. Love your fellow [Israelite] as yourself: I am יהוה.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אַגְרָא דְבֵי טַמְיָא — שְׁתִיקוּתָא.
Rav Pappa said: The primary reward for attending a house of mourning [bei tammaya] is for the silence, which is the optimal manner for those consoling the mourners to express their empathy.
לא רק שהיחסים המסחריים והחברתיים קשורים ומוגדרים בהגדרות מוסריות כוללות (כאיסורי גניבה וגזל, כאיסור מרמה והטעיה), אלא שיש גם מספר גדול של דיני ממונות השייכים גם לתחום ה״חוקים״ שבתורה, משום שהם קובעים כללי התנהגות החורגים הרבה מגדר יצירת סדר חברתי, אבל יש להם משמעות עקרונית-דתית לעצמם (כגון איסור הריבית, או דיני הֲשָׁבַת העבוט). תפיסת החסד וגמילות חסדים איננה באה רק כנספח אישי להנחיות החוק, אלא ההלכה עצמה, גם כהסדרת החוק האזרחי, משלבת בתוך החוק את החסד. הדין כשלעצמו הריהו במדה רבה — לפנים משורת הדין. מכאן גם מובן מדוע קיימת גם בדיני ממונות הבחנה-הפרדה בין דינים כלליים השייכים במשא ומתן בכל מקום ועם כל אדם, לבין דינים רבים החלים רק ביחסים שבין אנשים מישראל. ההגדרות הכוללות השייכות מצד מהותו לבחינת ה״דין״ — כלליות הן, וחלות על כל בני האדם; והן שייכות משום כך למצוות ״בני נוח״ הכלל-אנושיות כשם שהן חלק מדיני ישראל. ואולם, אותם צדדים של הלכה שמהותם היא ״לפנים משורת הדין״ מגדירים מערכת יחסים מיוחדת הקיימת בתוך כנסת ישראל דווקא, ביחסים כלפי ״אחיך״ — מערכת האחווה היהודית המיוחדת. דיני השבת אבידה או דיני הריבית אינם חלק ממערכת המשא והמתן הממוני ההוגן, אלא חלק מדיני החסד השייכים למסגרת הפנימית של עם ישראל בלבד.
A basic element in Jewish civil law is the integration of compassion with justice. To a large extent, the halakha goes beyond the requirements of justice. The obligation to relate to others with compassion and generosity is not merely a supererogatory addition to one's legal obligations; it is normative halakha that is derived from the conception of the Jewish people as one family. This is the reason for the distinction that one finds between general halakhot that structure economic life, which apply to all, and specific halakhot that apply only to interactions with fellow Jews. The general halakhot are as much a part of the Noahide mitzva to construct a fair legal system, which is incumbent upon all humanity, as they are aspects of Jewish law. By contrast, halakhot addressing interpersonal relationships, such as the obligation to return lost property and the prohibition against charging or paying interest, are not features of a legal system whose only purpose is justice. Rather, they reflect the requirement to have compassion on and care for one's fellow Jew.
Our need to interpret experience can also lead us to a more potentially problematic arena – the place of Eliphaz, interpreting the pain and difficulty of others. This transgresses the biblical prohibition of ona’at devarim, oppressing someone with words. In Leviticus, we read “Do not wrong one another, but fear your Lord, for I am God your Lord” (25:17). The Talmud offers a number of ways to interpret this verse in a specific manner, offering examples of how we can persecute others with our words. Oppression with words takes many forms, from asking the price of an object with no intention of purchasing it, to inviting someone to an event while knowing that that individual cannot attend, or paying with credit when one has the money. From what seem like relatively minor transgressions, the Talmud enters the emotional minefield of truly oppressive words. When we fabricate reasons for someone else’s suffering, we not only take an arrogant and smug stance about another’s experience, we also deem that person culpable in some way. Nothing could be more oppressive than heaping guilt or blame on top of a victim’s pain.
In the remarkable story of Job, it is not only God who causes Job’s suffering, it is his friends who augment his anguish by attributing Job’s suffering to his own misdeeds. They rhetorically suggest that people never suffer without deserving it. Each of Job’s three friends digs deeper into Job’s emotional psyche, mapping out a way to understand the world that makes Job the central cause of his own pain.
Job finally wrests the conversation back to his control, delivering his anguished response:
Job then offers a review of how God has lashed out against him, an implicit suggestion to his visitors that they need not reproach him: God has chastised him enough. And then he poses more ultimate questions to the very people who sit in judgment over him:
All my trusted friends abhor me, and they whom I love are turned against me…Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O my friends, for the hand of God has touched me. Why do you, like God, persecute me…? (Job 19:19–22)
The Talmud has no tolerance for such individuals as Job’s friends, with their moral self-righteousness. It lets us know in unambiguous terms the exact nature of the prohibition to interpret the suffering of others. We are prohibited from reminding someone who has become religiously observant about his or her past; we cannot ask a convert about his parents; we are forbidden to interpret the calamities that have befallen others. Each of these acts exposes another human being’s vulnerability in a gaping, painful and raw way. While others may choose to share the past with us, that is to be an act of their personal choice. We are not allowed to open the portals into another’s secrets, personal transformation or heartache. Each of the Talmud’s prohibitions reveals another element of the multi-layered nature of selfhood.
כָּל הַנּוֹתֵן צְדָקָה לְעָנִי בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים רָעוֹת וּפָנָיו כְּבוּשׁוֹת בַּקַּרְקַע אֲפִלּוּ נָתַן לוֹ אֶלֶף זְהוּבִים אִבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ וְהִפְסִידָהּ. אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים יָפוֹת וּבְשִׂמְחָה וּמִתְאוֹנֵן עִמּוֹ עַל צָרָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב ל כה) "אִם לֹא בָכִיתִי לִקְשֵׁה יוֹם עָגְמָה נַפְשִׁי לָאֶבְיוֹן". וּמְדַבֵּר לוֹ דִּבְרֵי תַּחֲנוּנִים וְנִחוּמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב כט יג) "וְלֵב אַלְמָנָה אַרְנִן":
Anyone who gives tzedakah to a poor person with a scowl and causes him to be embarrassed, even if he gave him a thousand zuz, has destroyed and lost any merit thereby. Rather, one should give cheerfully, with happiness [to do so] and empathy for his plight, as it is said, (Job 30:25) Did I not weep for the unfortunate? Did I not grieve for the needy? And one should speak to him words of comfort and consolation, as it is said, (Job 29:13) [I received the blessing of the lost,] I gladdened the heart of the widow.
(ישעיהו י״ג: א׳-כ״ג: י״ח)
נבואות לעמים
רצף פרקים זה כולל את עיקר הנבואות שניבא ישעיהו לגויים. גם בספרי נבואה אחרים אפשר למצוא קובץ נבואות על הגויים, ואפילו בחלק מספרי הנביאים הקטנים יותר. ירמיהו הנביא יועד במפורש לדבר עַל הַגּוֹיִם וְעַל הַמַמְלָכוֹת, לִנְתוֹשׁ וְלִנְתוֹץ... לִבְנוֹת וְלִנְטוֹעַ (ירמיה א,י). אמנם הנביא נשלח בעיקר לישראל, אבל תפקידו אינו מתמצה במה שסמוך לביתו. כל נביא עשוי לדבר על עמים וממלכות קרובים או רחוקים מאוד ועל עתידות נעלמות. עם זאת, את דרכו של ישעיהו בנבואותיו לאומות העולם מייחד האופי האוניברסלי המודגש. בניגוד לנביא עמוס, למשל, שבכל פעם שהוא מזכיר את מפלת הגויים, הוא מוצא לנכון להסביר שהיא נובעת מהצרות שגרמו לישראל, ישעיהו מתייחס לעמים כשהם לעצמם, מתוך מבט רחב וקוסמופוליטי, ולעתים אף מביע כאב על אובדן אומה שהייתה מצרה לישראל. נבואותיו אינן מוגבלות במסגרות של מקום וזמן. אל התרחשויות העתידות לקרות מאה שנה אחריו ואלף שנה אחריו, הוא מתייחס באופן דומה.
נבואות לעמים
רצף פרקים זה כולל את עיקר הנבואות שניבא ישעיהו לגויים. גם בספרי נבואה אחרים אפשר למצוא קובץ נבואות על הגויים, ואפילו בחלק מספרי הנביאים הקטנים יותר. ירמיהו הנביא יועד במפורש לדבר עַל הַגּוֹיִם וְעַל הַמַמְלָכוֹת, לִנְתוֹשׁ וְלִנְתוֹץ... לִבְנוֹת וְלִנְטוֹעַ (ירמיה א,י). אמנם הנביא נשלח בעיקר לישראל, אבל תפקידו אינו מתמצה במה שסמוך לביתו. כל נביא עשוי לדבר על עמים וממלכות קרובים או רחוקים מאוד ועל עתידות נעלמות. עם זאת, את דרכו של ישעיהו בנבואותיו לאומות העולם מייחד האופי האוניברסלי המודגש. בניגוד לנביא עמוס, למשל, שבכל פעם שהוא מזכיר את מפלת הגויים, הוא מוצא לנכון להסביר שהיא נובעת מהצרות שגרמו לישראל, ישעיהו מתייחס לעמים כשהם לעצמם, מתוך מבט רחב וקוסמופוליטי, ולעתים אף מביע כאב על אובדן אומה שהייתה מצרה לישראל. נבואותיו אינן מוגבלות במסגרות של מקום וזמן. אל התרחשויות העתידות לקרות מאה שנה אחריו ואלף שנה אחריו, הוא מתייחס באופן דומה.
(Isaiah 13:1–23:18)
Prophecies to the Nations
These chapters contain a series of prophecies that Isaiah addresses to different nations. Other prophetic books also contain prophecies directed at other nations; Jeremiah is even appointed explicitly as a prophet to the nations: “See, I have appointed you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to uproot, to smash, to eradicate, and to destroy, to build, and to plant.” Although the prophet’s main task is as a messenger to the Israelites of his own time, his role is not necessarily limited only to that, and he may convey a prophetic message to other nations, or about obscure events that will affect the Jewish people in the future. Isaiah’s prophecies to the nations are unique in their scope and in their emphatic universalistic tone. The prophet Amos, for example, constantly emphasizes how the downfall of other nations is a consequence of their treatment of Israel. By contrast, Isaiah relates to the nations themselves from a broad-minded, cosmopolitan perspective. At times, he even expresses empathy for nations that had a history of troubling Israel. These prophecies are not limited to a specific time, or set of events. Some of them relate to events that are soon to occur, while others might not be fulfilled for hundreds of years.
Prophecies to the Nations
These chapters contain a series of prophecies that Isaiah addresses to different nations. Other prophetic books also contain prophecies directed at other nations; Jeremiah is even appointed explicitly as a prophet to the nations: “See, I have appointed you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to uproot, to smash, to eradicate, and to destroy, to build, and to plant.” Although the prophet’s main task is as a messenger to the Israelites of his own time, his role is not necessarily limited only to that, and he may convey a prophetic message to other nations, or about obscure events that will affect the Jewish people in the future. Isaiah’s prophecies to the nations are unique in their scope and in their emphatic universalistic tone. The prophet Amos, for example, constantly emphasizes how the downfall of other nations is a consequence of their treatment of Israel. By contrast, Isaiah relates to the nations themselves from a broad-minded, cosmopolitan perspective. At times, he even expresses empathy for nations that had a history of troubling Israel. These prophecies are not limited to a specific time, or set of events. Some of them relate to events that are soon to occur, while others might not be fulfilled for hundreds of years.
לא תלין נבלתו על העץ. אזהרה שלא ישהה שם התלוי בלילה. ומכאן דרשו רז"ל אזהרה למלין את המת, וכן אמרו המלין את המת עובר בלא תלין, לפי שנאמר על העץ, מה עץ שהוא נוול אף כל שהוא נוול, הלינו לכבודו מותר. והנה כלל המצוה הזו שהמלין התלוי או המת בארץ ישראל עובר בשנים, בלאו ועשה, משום לא תלין ומשום עשה דקבור תקברנו. ונראה לי כי כיון שחטאו של אדם גרם שלא היתה לו לינה בגן עדן הוא שכתוב (תהילים מ״ט:י״ג) ואדם ביקר בל ילין, היה ראוי שהתורה לא תחוש על לינתו אלא ילין ויתבזה, אבל התורה והמצות מיוסדים על אדני החכמה, והטעם מפרש בכתוב קללת אלהים תלוי. על דרך הפשט זלזולו של הקב"ה אם ישהה שם, לפי שלא היה נתלה אלא מגדף ועובד עבודה זרה, ואם ישהנו שם יאמרו הכל מפני מה זה תלוי מפני שברך את השם או מפני שעבד עבודה זרה בכך וכך עבודה, והספור בעניני עבודה זרה הכל זלזול בכבודו של מקום, וא"כ מלת קללת כוללת שתי לשונות קללה וקלות. וכן פירשו רז"ל בפרק נגמר הדין, בזמן שהאדם מצטער מה לשון אומרת, קלני מראשי קלני מזרועי. כלומר שהעולם קל הוא לו מתוך כאבו, וכן השכינה מצטערת על האדם המצטער והגורם מיתתו, כענין שכתוב (שמות ג׳:ז׳) כי ידעתי את מכאוביו, וכן (ישעיהו ס״ג:ט׳) בכל צרתם לו צר, וכן (ויקרא כ׳:כ״ג) ואקוץ בם, מלשון קוצים, וזהו קללת אלהים. והעלו שם, א"כ נכתוב רחמנא קלת מאי קללת, שמע מינה תרתי.
לא תלין נבלתו על העץ, “Do not leave his body on the gallows overnight.” This is a warning that the body which was hanged after execution should not be allowed to remain on display overnight. Our sages used this verse to expand the law that a dead person should not remain unburied overnight (Sanhedrin 46). Sifri Ki Teytze states flatly that leaving a body unburied overnight is an infringement of the law not to leave the body of an executed person on the gallows overnight. It would be a double insult to leave man on the tree seeing the tree was meant in his honor, i.e. to provide the coffin for his body. Unless leaving the body overnight in order to supply it with shrouds, a coffin, etc., it would be an infringment of the law not to allow a dead corpse to remain unburied overnight.
The general rule applicable to this commandment is that in the land of Israel if one leaves a person on the gallows overnight one has violated both a positive and a negative commandment. The negative commandment is spelled out here in the words לא תלין נבלתו על העץ, whereas the positive aspect of the commandment are the words כי קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא, “but you are surely to bury him on that day.”
It seems to me that seeing Adam’s sin had been the cause that he did not spend the night in Gan Eden as we know from Psalms 49,13 אדם ביקר בל ילין, “Adam does not even spend a single night in the precious place” (as interpreted in Sanhedrin 38), man should not have qualified for all this consideration, but, on the contrary, his body deserved to be displayed overnight. The Torah teaches us with this legislation that despite such considerations it applies different yardsticks in its immeasurable wisdom as explained by the words כי קללת אלו-הים תלוי, “someone left hanging is a curse in the eyes of G’d.” According to the plain meaning of these words the implication is that it is proof that the person whose body has been hung must have blasphemed G’d the Creator, or he must have been guilty of serving idols. Otherwise he would not have been on display overnight. [Legally speaking, according to the majority opinion in Sanhedrin 45, only the body of a blasphemer was hung on the gallows for the balance of the day of his execution. Ed.]. We may therefore understand the word קללת as having a dual meaning, i.e. קללה, “curse,” and קלה, “treating lightly, as being of no value, belittling.” He who serves idols treats the Creator as if He were irrelevant.
Our sages in Sanhedrin 46 describe a person when he is in a depressed state of mind as saying קל עלי עלמא, “the world is ‘light’ for me,” as really meaning that the world is too heavy for him, but he does not want to utter something that could be self-incriminating. Similarly, here. The Shechinah does not want to “incriminate“ itself. Therefore the Torah phrases this sentiment as if it were bemoaning its own fate, whereas in reality it is expressing its pain at the fate that befell one of its creatures. G’d experiences pain when man has to die. We know this already from Exodus 3,7 where G’d tells Moses concerning the pain experienced by the Jewish people כי ידעתי את מכאוביו, “for I am keenly aware of its pains.” Another verse testifying to this empathy of G’d with the pain of the Jewish people is found in Isaiah 63,9 בכל צרתם לו צר, “in all its troubles, G’d is troubled.” We have to understand the words קללת אלו-הים in a similar fashion, describing G’d’s empathy with this particular individual’s fate.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin raises questions against the peculiar wording saying that if indeed this is the correct interpretation the Torah should have written קלת instead of קללת. The answer given is that the reason the Torah wrote the extra letter ל was to give the word both meanings (as we already mentioned) .
The general rule applicable to this commandment is that in the land of Israel if one leaves a person on the gallows overnight one has violated both a positive and a negative commandment. The negative commandment is spelled out here in the words לא תלין נבלתו על העץ, whereas the positive aspect of the commandment are the words כי קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא, “but you are surely to bury him on that day.”
It seems to me that seeing Adam’s sin had been the cause that he did not spend the night in Gan Eden as we know from Psalms 49,13 אדם ביקר בל ילין, “Adam does not even spend a single night in the precious place” (as interpreted in Sanhedrin 38), man should not have qualified for all this consideration, but, on the contrary, his body deserved to be displayed overnight. The Torah teaches us with this legislation that despite such considerations it applies different yardsticks in its immeasurable wisdom as explained by the words כי קללת אלו-הים תלוי, “someone left hanging is a curse in the eyes of G’d.” According to the plain meaning of these words the implication is that it is proof that the person whose body has been hung must have blasphemed G’d the Creator, or he must have been guilty of serving idols. Otherwise he would not have been on display overnight. [Legally speaking, according to the majority opinion in Sanhedrin 45, only the body of a blasphemer was hung on the gallows for the balance of the day of his execution. Ed.]. We may therefore understand the word קללת as having a dual meaning, i.e. קללה, “curse,” and קלה, “treating lightly, as being of no value, belittling.” He who serves idols treats the Creator as if He were irrelevant.
Our sages in Sanhedrin 46 describe a person when he is in a depressed state of mind as saying קל עלי עלמא, “the world is ‘light’ for me,” as really meaning that the world is too heavy for him, but he does not want to utter something that could be self-incriminating. Similarly, here. The Shechinah does not want to “incriminate“ itself. Therefore the Torah phrases this sentiment as if it were bemoaning its own fate, whereas in reality it is expressing its pain at the fate that befell one of its creatures. G’d experiences pain when man has to die. We know this already from Exodus 3,7 where G’d tells Moses concerning the pain experienced by the Jewish people כי ידעתי את מכאוביו, “for I am keenly aware of its pains.” Another verse testifying to this empathy of G’d with the pain of the Jewish people is found in Isaiah 63,9 בכל צרתם לו צר, “in all its troubles, G’d is troubled.” We have to understand the words קללת אלו-הים in a similar fashion, describing G’d’s empathy with this particular individual’s fate.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin raises questions against the peculiar wording saying that if indeed this is the correct interpretation the Torah should have written קלת instead of קללת. The answer given is that the reason the Torah wrote the extra letter ל was to give the word both meanings (as we already mentioned) .
בְּֽכׇל־צָרָתָ֣ם ׀ (לא) [ל֣וֹ] צָ֗ר וּמַלְאַ֤ךְ פָּנָיו֙ הוֹשִׁיעָ֔ם בְּאַהֲבָת֥וֹ וּבְחֶמְלָת֖וֹ ה֣וּא גְאָלָ֑ם וַֽיְנַטְּלֵ֥ם וַֽיְנַשְּׂאֵ֖ם כׇּל־יְמֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃
In all their troubles [God] was troubled,
And the angel of the divine Presence delivered them.
In love and pity
It was [God] who redeemed them,
Raised them, and exalted them
All the days of old.
And the angel of the divine Presence delivered them.
In love and pity
It was [God] who redeemed them,
Raised them, and exalted them
All the days of old.
(יא) וַיְהִ֣י ׀ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֗ם וַיִּגְדַּ֤ל מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם וַיַּרְא֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מַכֶּ֥ה אִישׁ־עִבְרִ֖י מֵאֶחָֽיו׃
(11) Some time after that, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his kinsfolk and witnessed their labors. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his kinsmen.
(ב) דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (איוב לד, יא): כִּי פֹעַל אָדָם יְשַׁלֶּם לוֹ וּכְאֹרַח אִישׁ יַמְצִאֶנּוּ, עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּחַד גְּבַר דַּהֲווֹ לֵיהּ תְּרֵין בְּנִין, חַד מִנְּהוֹן עֲבַד מִצְוָה וְחַד מִנְּהוֹן לָא עֲבַד כָּל עִקָּר, הַהוּא דַּעֲבַד מִצְוָה זַבַּן לְבֵיתֵיהּ וְזַבַּן כָּל מַה דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ וְאַפְּקַנְתְּהוֹן לְמִצְוָתָא, חַד זְמַן בְּיוֹמָא דְהוֹשַׁעְנָא יַהֲבָה לֵיהּ אִינְתְּתֵיהּ עַשְׂרָה פּוּלְסִין אָמְרָה לֵיהּ פּוּק זְבֵין לְבָנֶיךָ כְּלוּם מִן שׁוּקָא, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא לַשּׁוּק פָּגְעוּ בֵּיהּ גַּבָּאֵי צְדָקָה, אָמְרֵי הָא אֲתָא מָרֵי מִצְוָתָא, אָמְרוּ לוֹ הַב חוּלָקָךְ בַּהֲדָא מִצְוָתָא דַּאֲנַן זָבְנִין חַד קוֹלָא לְחָדָא יְתוֹמְתָא, נְסַב אִלֵּין עַשְׂרָה פּוּלְסִין וִיהַב יַתְהוֹן לְהוֹן, וְנִתְבַּיֵּישׁ לֵילֵךְ לְבֵיתוֹ הָלַךְ לוֹ לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, חָמָא תַּמָּן מִן אִלֵּין אֶתְרוֹגַיָא דְּמֵינוּקַיָא מְקַלְקְלֵי בְּיוֹם הוֹשַׁעְנָא, וּתְנִינַן תַּמָּן מִיָּד הַתִּינוֹקוֹת שׁוֹמְטִין לוּלָבֵיהֶן וְאוֹכְלִים אֶתְרוֹגֵיהֶם, נְסַב מִנְּהוֹן וּמְלָא יָת סַקָּא וְהָלַךְ לִפְרשׁ בַּיָּם הַגָּדוֹל, עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִמְדִינַת הַמֶּלֶךְ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ שָׁם אַרָעַת שַׁעְתָּא וְאִשְׁתְּכַח מַלְכָּא חָשֵׁשׁ מֵעוֹי, אָמְרִין לֵיהּ בְּחֶלְמָא אַסְוָתָךְ אֱכֹל מִן אִלֵּין אֶתְרוֹגִין דִּיהוּדָאי מַצְלִין עִמְּהוֹן בְּיוֹם הוֹשַׁעְנָא וְאַתְּ מִתְּסֵי, פִּשְׁפְּשִׁין בְּהַהוּא שַׁעְתָּא לְכָל אִלְפַיָא וּלְכָל מְדִינְתָּא וְלָא אַשְׁכְּחוּן, אָזְלִין וְאַשְׁכְּחוּן לְהַהוּא גַבְרָא יָתֵיב עַל סַקָּא, אָמְרִין לֵיהּ אִית גַּבָּךְ כְּלוּם, אֲמַר לָהֶם גְּבַר מִסְכֵּן אֲנָא וְלֵית גַּבִּי כְּלוּם לִמְזַבְּנָא, פִּשְׁפְּשׁוּ בְּסַקָּא וְאַשְׁכְּחוּן מִן אִלֵּין אֶתְרוֹגִין, וַאֲמָרִין לֵיהּ אִלֵּין מָה הֵן, אֲמַר לוֹן מִן אִלֵּין דִּיהוּדָאי מַצְלֵי בְּיוֹם הוֹשַׁעְנָא, אַטְעָנוּן סַקָּא וְאַעֲלוּהָ קֳדָם מַלְכָּא, אָכַל מַלְכָּא אִלֵּין אֶתְרוֹגַיָיא וְאִתְּסֵי. פַּנּוּן שַׂקָּא וּמְלָאוּהָ דִינָרִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַלְכָּא שְׁאֵיל לָךְ עוֹד שְׁאֵלָּה וַאֲנָא עָבֵיד, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁאֵילְנָא דְיַחֲזֹר לִי מוֹדְלִי וְיִפְקוּן כָּל עַמָּא לָקֳדָמוּתִי, עָבְדִין לֵיהּ כֵן, כֵּיוָן דְּמָטָא לְהַהִיא מְדִינְתָּא נָפַק כָּרוֹזָא קֳדָמוֹי וְנָפְקוּ כָּל עַמָּא לָקֳדָמוּתֵיהּ, נָפְקוּ אֲחוֹי וּבָנָיו לָקֳדָמוּתֵיהּ, מִינֵי גוֹזִין בְּחַד נָהָר יְהַב לְהוֹן שִׁבֹּלְתָּא דְנַהֲרָא וְשָׁטְפַת יָתְהוֹן, וְאִשְׂתַּכַּר עָלֵל לְבֵיתֵיהּ וְיָרַת מוֹדְלֵי דַּאֲחוֹי, לְקַיֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: כִּי פֹעַל אָדָם יְשַׁלֶּם לוֹ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כִּי פֹּעַל אָדָם יְשַׁלֶּם לוֹ, זֶה משֶׁה, דִּכְתִיב (שמות ב, יא): וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וַיִּגְדַּל משֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל אֶחָיו וַיַּרְא בְּסִבְלֹתָם, מַה רָאָה, רָאָה מַשּׂוֹי אִישׁ עַל אִשָּׁה, וּמַשׂוֹי גָּדוֹל עַל קָטָן, וּמַשׂוֹי בָּחוּר עַל זָקֵן, וְשָׁב וְיִשֵּׁב לָהֶם סִבְלוֹתָם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה בֵּין גָּדוֹל לְקָטָן, בֵּין בָּחוּר לְזָקֵן, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתָּה יִשַּׁבְתָּ לְבָנַי סִבְלוֹתָם חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁאַתָּה עָתִיד לְיַשֵּׁב וּלְפָרֵשׁ לְבָנַי נִדְרֵיהֶם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה בֵּין גָּדוֹל לְקָטָן, בֵּין בָּחוּר לְזָקֵן, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל משֶׁה לֵאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ נְפָשֹׁת לַה'.
(2) Another matter: “If a man articulates” – that is what is written: “For He repays a person for his actions, and according to the conduct of a man He will provide for him” (Job 34:11). There was an incident involving a certain man who had two sons, one of whom performed the mitzva [of giving charity] and one who did nothing at all. The one who performed a mitzva sold his house and sold everything that was his, and he spent [the money] on the mitzva. One time, on the day of the hoshana, his wife gave him ten shekels. She said to him: ‘Go out and purchase something from the market for your children.’ When he went out to the market, the charity collectors encountered him. They said: ‘Here comes the master of mitzvot.’ They said to him: ‘Give your portion for this mitzva, as we are buying a coat for a certain orphan girl.’ He took those ten shekels and gave them to them, and he was ashamed to go to his home. He went to the synagogue and saw there some of the citrons that the children [throw and] ruin on the day of the hoshana, as we learn there: Immediately, children drop their palm branches and eat their citrons.6Mishna Sukka 4:7. He took some of them and filled a sack, and embarked on a voyage in the Mediterranean Sea until he reached the province of the king. When he arrived there, it happened to be that the king had an intestinal illness. They said to him in a dream: ‘Your cure is to eat from those citrons with which the Jews pray on the day of the hoshana, and you will be cured.’ At that time, they searched all the ships and all the provinces, but could not find any. They went and found that man sitting on the sack. They said to him: ‘Do you have anything?’ He said to them: ‘I am a poor man and I have nothing to sell.’ They searched the sack and found those citrons. They said to him: ‘What are they?’ He said to them: ‘From those with which the Jews pray on the day of the hoshana.’ They loaded the sack and took it in before the king. The king ate those citrons and he was cured. They emptied the sack and filled it with dinars. The king said to him: ‘Make another request, and I will fulfill it.’ He said to him: ‘I request that my properties be restored to me and that all the people come out to greet me.’ He did so for him. When he arrived at [his home] province, a herald went out before him and all the people came out to greet him. His brother and his brother’s son went out to greet him, but as they were passing through a certain river, a current came and washed them away. It turned out that when he entered his home, he inherited his brother’s properties, to realize what is stated: “For He repays a person for his actions.”
Another matter: “For He repays a person for his actions” – this is Moses, as it is written: “It was in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out to his brethren and he saw their burdens” (Exodus 2:11). What did he see? He saw the burden of a man on a woman, the burden of an adult on a child, and the burden of a lad on an old man.7The Egyptians would force the Israelites to perform labors they were unfit to perform. He then rearranged their burdens between man and woman, between adult and child, between lad and old man. The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You resolved the burdens of My children; as you live, you are destined to explain and clarify for My children their vows, [differentiating] between man and woman, between adult and child, between lad and old man. That is what is written: “The Lord spoke to Moses…saying: Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: If a man articulates a vow in accordance with the valuation of persons to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:1–2).
(ב) וירא בסבלתם. נָתַן עֵינָיו וְלִבּוֹ לִהְיוֹת מֵצֵר עֲלֵיהֶם (שמות רבה א'):
(2) וירא בסבלתם AND HE SAW THEIR BURDENS — he set his eyes and mind to share in their distress. (Exodus Rabbah 1:27)
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָ֔ה רָאֹ֥ה רָאִ֛יתִי אֶת־עֳנִ֥י עַמִּ֖י אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם וְאֶת־צַעֲקָתָ֤ם שָׁמַ֙עְתִּי֙ מִפְּנֵ֣י נֹֽגְשָׂ֔יו כִּ֥י יָדַ֖עְתִּי אֶת־מַכְאֹבָֽיו׃
And יהוה continued, “I have marked well the plight of My people in Egypt and have heeded their outcry because of their taskmasters; yes, I am mindful of their sufferings.
לא צר. האמת שהוא בוי"ו, כטעם ותקצר נפשו (שופטים י' ט"ו), דרך משל להבין [השומעים], כאלו גם הוא הוה [צ"ל היה] בצרה על כן מהר להושיעם:
לא The true meaning of the word is to Him; and לא צר (lit., Unto Him was trouble), he was afflicted, has the same meaning as And His soul was grieved (Jud. 10:16). It is a figurative expression. He was, as it were, in distress, therefore He hastened to deliver them.
Hello
Tzofia
Moses
Benee brown
The story of Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt for looking back at the destruction of Sodom has sparked a range of interpretations in classic Jewish sources. Below are explanations from various rabbinic and Jewish commentaries, exploring why Lot's wife looked back:
### 1. **Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki)**
**Curiosity and Disobedience**: Rashi, the great medieval commentator, explains that Lot's wife looked back out of curiosity and a desire to see what was happening. He notes that her act of looking back represented a violation of the angels’ explicit command not to do so, which is why she was punished.
- **Reason for looking back**: Rashi suggests that it was because she did not believe fully in the divine decree or was too attached to the sinful ways of Sodom.
### 2. **Midrash Bereshit Rabbah**
**Attachment to Wealth**: The Midrash offers another perspective, suggesting that Lot's wife looked back because of her attachment to the material wealth they were leaving behind in Sodom. This was an indication that she was still bound to the immoral and corrupt lifestyle of Sodom, symbolizing a reluctance to sever ties with her past.
- **Punishment fitting the crime**: In this interpretation, her transformation into a pillar of salt is seen as a poetic punishment—just as she withheld salt from guests in Sodom, so too was she turned into salt.
### 3. **Ramban (Nachmanides)**
**Lack of Faith**: Ramban explains that Lot’s wife looked back because she doubted God’s justice. She wanted to see whether Sodom was truly being destroyed as the angels had said. Her punishment for this was immediate, as it demonstrated a lack of faith in God’s command.
- **Moral lesson**: Her turning into a pillar of salt serves as a stark reminder that one must trust in divine decrees without question.
### 4. **Radak (Rabbi David Kimhi)**
**Empathy for the Sodomites**: According to Radak, Lot’s wife may have looked back out of empathy or regret for the people of Sodom. Her heart was not fully aligned with the values of Lot, who chose to escape, and instead, she felt sorrow for the city's destruction.
- **Conflict of values**: This could be seen as a sign that she still identified with the people of Sodom and did not embrace the righteousness required to survive.
### 5. **Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra)**
**Rebellion and Hesitation**: Ibn Ezra interprets the act as one of rebellion and hesitation. Lot’s wife’s decision to look back represents her resistance to the divine command and her inability to completely detach from her previous life. By turning back, she symbolically remained part of Sodom, showing a lack of resolve in following God’s instructions.
- **Judgment**: Her transformation into salt reflects her divided loyalty—her body was removed from Sodom, but her heart and mind were still there.
### 6. **Sforno (Rabbi Ovadia Sforno)**
**Ingratitude and Selfishness**: Sforno suggests that Lot's wife looked back out of ingratitude. While she had been spared from the destruction, she did not show appreciation for her rescue. Looking back was a sign of selfishness, a refusal to move forward and start a new, righteous life.
- **Symbolism of salt**: The salt into which she was transformed represents the barrenness and inability to contribute to a positive future.
### 7. **Zohar (Jewish Mysticism)**
**Attachment to Sin**: In the mystical tradition of the Zohar, Lot's wife’s looking back is interpreted as a deep attachment to the spiritual impurity of Sodom. She was spiritually tainted by the environment of the city, and by looking back, she symbolically reconnected with that impurity. Her transformation into a pillar of salt is understood as a metaphysical consequence of her inability to fully separate from the corrupt forces of Sodom.
- **Spiritual consequences**: The Zohar suggests that her punishment represents the spiritual contamination of her soul, which was irreversibly tied to Sodom’s fate.
### 8. **Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch**
**Inability to Let Go**: Hirsch explains that Lot’s wife looked back because she was unable to let go of her past life. She was still attached to the materialistic and immoral society of Sodom, which is why she looked back with longing. This backward glance demonstrated that her inner self was still in Sodom, even though she was physically leaving.
- **Moral insight**: Hirsch sees this as a powerful lesson in the dangers of looking back at past sins or negative influences, rather than focusing on the path toward a better, more moral life.
### Summary of Themes:
- **Curiosity and disbelief** (Rashi, Ramban)
- **Attachment to material wealth** (Midrash Bereshit Rabbah)
- **Empathy for the wicked** (Radak)
- **Hesitation and rebellion** (Ibn Ezra, Sforno)
- **Spiritual impurity** (Zohar)
- **Ingratitude and selfishness** (Sforno)
- **Inability to let go of the past** (Hirsch)
Each interpretation provides a different lens through which to view Lot’s wife’s actions, whether focusing on her emotional, spiritual, or moral state at that moment.
### 1. **Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki)**
**Curiosity and Disobedience**: Rashi, the great medieval commentator, explains that Lot's wife looked back out of curiosity and a desire to see what was happening. He notes that her act of looking back represented a violation of the angels’ explicit command not to do so, which is why she was punished.
- **Reason for looking back**: Rashi suggests that it was because she did not believe fully in the divine decree or was too attached to the sinful ways of Sodom.
### 2. **Midrash Bereshit Rabbah**
**Attachment to Wealth**: The Midrash offers another perspective, suggesting that Lot's wife looked back because of her attachment to the material wealth they were leaving behind in Sodom. This was an indication that she was still bound to the immoral and corrupt lifestyle of Sodom, symbolizing a reluctance to sever ties with her past.
- **Punishment fitting the crime**: In this interpretation, her transformation into a pillar of salt is seen as a poetic punishment—just as she withheld salt from guests in Sodom, so too was she turned into salt.
### 3. **Ramban (Nachmanides)**
**Lack of Faith**: Ramban explains that Lot’s wife looked back because she doubted God’s justice. She wanted to see whether Sodom was truly being destroyed as the angels had said. Her punishment for this was immediate, as it demonstrated a lack of faith in God’s command.
- **Moral lesson**: Her turning into a pillar of salt serves as a stark reminder that one must trust in divine decrees without question.
### 4. **Radak (Rabbi David Kimhi)**
**Empathy for the Sodomites**: According to Radak, Lot’s wife may have looked back out of empathy or regret for the people of Sodom. Her heart was not fully aligned with the values of Lot, who chose to escape, and instead, she felt sorrow for the city's destruction.
- **Conflict of values**: This could be seen as a sign that she still identified with the people of Sodom and did not embrace the righteousness required to survive.
### 5. **Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra)**
**Rebellion and Hesitation**: Ibn Ezra interprets the act as one of rebellion and hesitation. Lot’s wife’s decision to look back represents her resistance to the divine command and her inability to completely detach from her previous life. By turning back, she symbolically remained part of Sodom, showing a lack of resolve in following God’s instructions.
- **Judgment**: Her transformation into salt reflects her divided loyalty—her body was removed from Sodom, but her heart and mind were still there.
### 6. **Sforno (Rabbi Ovadia Sforno)**
**Ingratitude and Selfishness**: Sforno suggests that Lot's wife looked back out of ingratitude. While she had been spared from the destruction, she did not show appreciation for her rescue. Looking back was a sign of selfishness, a refusal to move forward and start a new, righteous life.
- **Symbolism of salt**: The salt into which she was transformed represents the barrenness and inability to contribute to a positive future.
### 7. **Zohar (Jewish Mysticism)**
**Attachment to Sin**: In the mystical tradition of the Zohar, Lot's wife’s looking back is interpreted as a deep attachment to the spiritual impurity of Sodom. She was spiritually tainted by the environment of the city, and by looking back, she symbolically reconnected with that impurity. Her transformation into a pillar of salt is understood as a metaphysical consequence of her inability to fully separate from the corrupt forces of Sodom.
- **Spiritual consequences**: The Zohar suggests that her punishment represents the spiritual contamination of her soul, which was irreversibly tied to Sodom’s fate.
### 8. **Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch**
**Inability to Let Go**: Hirsch explains that Lot’s wife looked back because she was unable to let go of her past life. She was still attached to the materialistic and immoral society of Sodom, which is why she looked back with longing. This backward glance demonstrated that her inner self was still in Sodom, even though she was physically leaving.
- **Moral insight**: Hirsch sees this as a powerful lesson in the dangers of looking back at past sins or negative influences, rather than focusing on the path toward a better, more moral life.
### Summary of Themes:
- **Curiosity and disbelief** (Rashi, Ramban)
- **Attachment to material wealth** (Midrash Bereshit Rabbah)
- **Empathy for the wicked** (Radak)
- **Hesitation and rebellion** (Ibn Ezra, Sforno)
- **Spiritual impurity** (Zohar)
- **Ingratitude and selfishness** (Sforno)
- **Inability to let go of the past** (Hirsch)
Each interpretation provides a different lens through which to view Lot’s wife’s actions, whether focusing on her emotional, spiritual, or moral state at that moment.
Feminist readings of the story of Lot's wife often approach her actions and punishment through the lens of gender, power dynamics, and the historical treatment of women in biblical narratives. These interpretations provide alternative perspectives on why Lot’s wife looked back at the destruction of Sodom and explore broader themes of autonomy, control, and the societal roles imposed on women.
### 1. **Phyllis Trible – "Text of Terror"**
**Victim of Patriarchal Structures**: In her groundbreaking work *Texts of Terror*, Phyllis Trible suggests that Lot's wife is a victim of patriarchal structures, much like other women in the Bible who suffer due to male-dominated decision-making. In the context of the story, Lot’s wife is rendered largely invisible, with no name of her own, and is ultimately defined by her husband's choices. Trible argues that her act of looking back could be seen as a moment of defiance or resistance, reclaiming her agency in a situation where she had no voice or control.
- **Act of resistance**: The act of looking back may represent her attempt to assert her autonomy, even in the face of divine commands or her husband's authority. Her punishment reflects the harsh consequences faced by women who challenge the status quo.
### 2. **Tikva Frymer-Kensky – "Reading the Women of the Bible"**
**Maternal Instinct and Loss**: Tikva Frymer-Kensky, in *Reading the Women of the Bible*, views Lot’s wife’s backward glance as an expression of her role as a mother. Lot’s wife was leaving behind more than just material possessions in Sodom; she was also losing her home and possibly children. The text mentions that Lot’s sons-in-law refused to leave, and some interpretations suggest that her daughters may have perished as well. From a feminist perspective, her glance back might represent the grief and pain of a mother leaving behind her family and home.
- **Grief and longing**: Frymer-Kensky suggests that the punishment of turning into a pillar of salt might be a reflection of the "salt tears" of a mother grieving over her loss, providing a more empathetic and emotionally complex understanding of her actions.
### 3. **Judith Plaskow – "Standing Again at Sinai"**
**Reclaiming Female Power and Identity**: Judith Plaskow, a prominent feminist theologian, approaches the story of Lot’s wife as part of the broader narrative of women’s marginalization in biblical texts. In *Standing Again at Sinai*, she suggests that Lot’s wife’s story reflects the erasure of women's voices and experiences in male-centered biblical narratives. The fact that Lot’s wife is unnamed and largely silent highlights her lack of agency and the way women’s experiences are often secondary to the male characters in the story.
- **Reclaiming her narrative**: Lot’s wife looking back could be interpreted as a moment of self-assertion, where she refuses to simply follow her husband's lead. The act may represent a desire to retain a connection to her past, her home, and her identity, which had been subsumed under Lot's authority.
### 4. **Mieke Bal – "Lethal Love"**
**The Conflict Between Duty and Emotion**: Mieke Bal, a scholar of feminist biblical interpretation, reads the story of Lot's wife through the lens of emotional conflict. In *Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories*, Bal interprets Lot’s wife’s action as a reflection of the tension between emotional ties and divine command. Lot's wife is torn between her obligations to follow her husband and the divine decree, and her emotional attachment to her home and family in Sodom.
- **A human reaction**: From this perspective, her looking back is a deeply human response to the trauma of losing her home and life, rather than an act of rebellion or disobedience. Bal emphasizes that Lot's wife, like many women in patriarchal systems, is caught between conflicting demands—her personal attachments and her prescribed duties as a wife and mother.
### 5. **Athalya Brenner – "The Intercourse of Knowledge"**
**The Silent Women of the Bible**: Athalya Brenner, in *The Intercourse of Knowledge*, examines the silence of women in biblical narratives, including Lot’s wife. Brenner highlights the fact that Lot’s wife is an unnamed character who, like many women in the Bible, has no voice in her own story. Her only action—looking back—is met with immediate punishment, reinforcing the idea that women in the Bible are often silenced or punished for asserting their own will.
- **Symbol of the silenced woman**: Lot’s wife’s backward glance could be seen as her only act of self-expression, which is swiftly punished. Brenner argues that this reflects the broader pattern of the Bible’s treatment of women, where their actions are often restricted, and any attempt at independence or autonomy is met with consequences.
### 6. **Dr. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi – "The Torah: A Women's Commentary"**
**Feminine Longing for Connection**: In *The Torah: A Women's Commentary*, Dr. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi offers a feminist perspective on Lot’s wife’s looking back as an expression of her desire for connection and continuity. Lot’s wife is portrayed as the embodiment of the tension between leaving behind the past and the desire to remain connected to it. For women, who often serve as the emotional and social center of the home, leaving everything behind without looking back can be seen as an almost impossible task.
- **Humanization of Lot’s wife**: Eskenazi suggests that her act of looking back reflects her need to retain some connection to her past life, a desire to hold onto the relationships and memories that made up her identity. The punishment of being turned into salt highlights the harshness of a world that allows no space for this emotional complexity in women’s lives.
### 7. **Ilana Pardes – "Countertraditions in the Bible"**
**Defiance of Divine Will**: Ilana Pardes, in *Countertraditions in the Bible*, views Lot's wife as a figure of resistance. Pardes emphasizes the significance of women’s defiance in biblical narratives and suggests that Lot’s wife, in her decision to look back, is engaging in an act of defiance against both divine and patriarchal authority.
- **A challenge to authority**: By looking back, Lot's wife asserts her autonomy, challenging the notion that women must always follow the will of men and God without question. Her transformation into a pillar of salt serves as a critique of the limited roles available to women in the Bible and the severe consequences they face for stepping outside those roles.
### Summary of Feminist Themes:
- **Patriarchal victimhood** (Phyllis Trible, Judith Plaskow)
- **Grief and maternal instinct** (Tikva Frymer-Kensky)
- **Conflict between duty and emotion** (Mieke Bal)
- **Silencing of women in biblical narratives** (Athalya Brenner)
- **Longing for connection** (Tamara Cohn Eskenazi)
- **Defiance and autonomy** (Ilana Pardes)
Feminist commentaries offer a range of interpretations of Lot’s wife’s actions, focusing on her emotional and psychological experience, her role as a mother and wife, and her resistance to patriarchal structures. These readings emphasize her humanity and seek to reclaim her voice and story from the traditional male-centered narrative.
### 1. **Phyllis Trible – "Text of Terror"**
**Victim of Patriarchal Structures**: In her groundbreaking work *Texts of Terror*, Phyllis Trible suggests that Lot's wife is a victim of patriarchal structures, much like other women in the Bible who suffer due to male-dominated decision-making. In the context of the story, Lot’s wife is rendered largely invisible, with no name of her own, and is ultimately defined by her husband's choices. Trible argues that her act of looking back could be seen as a moment of defiance or resistance, reclaiming her agency in a situation where she had no voice or control.
- **Act of resistance**: The act of looking back may represent her attempt to assert her autonomy, even in the face of divine commands or her husband's authority. Her punishment reflects the harsh consequences faced by women who challenge the status quo.
### 2. **Tikva Frymer-Kensky – "Reading the Women of the Bible"**
**Maternal Instinct and Loss**: Tikva Frymer-Kensky, in *Reading the Women of the Bible*, views Lot’s wife’s backward glance as an expression of her role as a mother. Lot’s wife was leaving behind more than just material possessions in Sodom; she was also losing her home and possibly children. The text mentions that Lot’s sons-in-law refused to leave, and some interpretations suggest that her daughters may have perished as well. From a feminist perspective, her glance back might represent the grief and pain of a mother leaving behind her family and home.
- **Grief and longing**: Frymer-Kensky suggests that the punishment of turning into a pillar of salt might be a reflection of the "salt tears" of a mother grieving over her loss, providing a more empathetic and emotionally complex understanding of her actions.
### 3. **Judith Plaskow – "Standing Again at Sinai"**
**Reclaiming Female Power and Identity**: Judith Plaskow, a prominent feminist theologian, approaches the story of Lot’s wife as part of the broader narrative of women’s marginalization in biblical texts. In *Standing Again at Sinai*, she suggests that Lot’s wife’s story reflects the erasure of women's voices and experiences in male-centered biblical narratives. The fact that Lot’s wife is unnamed and largely silent highlights her lack of agency and the way women’s experiences are often secondary to the male characters in the story.
- **Reclaiming her narrative**: Lot’s wife looking back could be interpreted as a moment of self-assertion, where she refuses to simply follow her husband's lead. The act may represent a desire to retain a connection to her past, her home, and her identity, which had been subsumed under Lot's authority.
### 4. **Mieke Bal – "Lethal Love"**
**The Conflict Between Duty and Emotion**: Mieke Bal, a scholar of feminist biblical interpretation, reads the story of Lot's wife through the lens of emotional conflict. In *Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories*, Bal interprets Lot’s wife’s action as a reflection of the tension between emotional ties and divine command. Lot's wife is torn between her obligations to follow her husband and the divine decree, and her emotional attachment to her home and family in Sodom.
- **A human reaction**: From this perspective, her looking back is a deeply human response to the trauma of losing her home and life, rather than an act of rebellion or disobedience. Bal emphasizes that Lot's wife, like many women in patriarchal systems, is caught between conflicting demands—her personal attachments and her prescribed duties as a wife and mother.
### 5. **Athalya Brenner – "The Intercourse of Knowledge"**
**The Silent Women of the Bible**: Athalya Brenner, in *The Intercourse of Knowledge*, examines the silence of women in biblical narratives, including Lot’s wife. Brenner highlights the fact that Lot’s wife is an unnamed character who, like many women in the Bible, has no voice in her own story. Her only action—looking back—is met with immediate punishment, reinforcing the idea that women in the Bible are often silenced or punished for asserting their own will.
- **Symbol of the silenced woman**: Lot’s wife’s backward glance could be seen as her only act of self-expression, which is swiftly punished. Brenner argues that this reflects the broader pattern of the Bible’s treatment of women, where their actions are often restricted, and any attempt at independence or autonomy is met with consequences.
### 6. **Dr. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi – "The Torah: A Women's Commentary"**
**Feminine Longing for Connection**: In *The Torah: A Women's Commentary*, Dr. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi offers a feminist perspective on Lot’s wife’s looking back as an expression of her desire for connection and continuity. Lot’s wife is portrayed as the embodiment of the tension between leaving behind the past and the desire to remain connected to it. For women, who often serve as the emotional and social center of the home, leaving everything behind without looking back can be seen as an almost impossible task.
- **Humanization of Lot’s wife**: Eskenazi suggests that her act of looking back reflects her need to retain some connection to her past life, a desire to hold onto the relationships and memories that made up her identity. The punishment of being turned into salt highlights the harshness of a world that allows no space for this emotional complexity in women’s lives.
### 7. **Ilana Pardes – "Countertraditions in the Bible"**
**Defiance of Divine Will**: Ilana Pardes, in *Countertraditions in the Bible*, views Lot's wife as a figure of resistance. Pardes emphasizes the significance of women’s defiance in biblical narratives and suggests that Lot’s wife, in her decision to look back, is engaging in an act of defiance against both divine and patriarchal authority.
- **A challenge to authority**: By looking back, Lot's wife asserts her autonomy, challenging the notion that women must always follow the will of men and God without question. Her transformation into a pillar of salt serves as a critique of the limited roles available to women in the Bible and the severe consequences they face for stepping outside those roles.
### Summary of Feminist Themes:
- **Patriarchal victimhood** (Phyllis Trible, Judith Plaskow)
- **Grief and maternal instinct** (Tikva Frymer-Kensky)
- **Conflict between duty and emotion** (Mieke Bal)
- **Silencing of women in biblical narratives** (Athalya Brenner)
- **Longing for connection** (Tamara Cohn Eskenazi)
- **Defiance and autonomy** (Ilana Pardes)
Feminist commentaries offer a range of interpretations of Lot’s wife’s actions, focusing on her emotional and psychological experience, her role as a mother and wife, and her resistance to patriarchal structures. These readings emphasize her humanity and seek to reclaim her voice and story from the traditional male-centered narrative.
(יד) וַיַּשְׁכֵּ֣ם אַבְרָהָ֣ם ׀ בַּבֹּ֡קֶר וַיִּֽקַּֽח־לֶ֩חֶם֩ וְחֵ֨מַת מַ֜יִם וַיִּתֵּ֣ן אֶל־הָ֠גָ֠ר שָׂ֧ם עַל־שִׁכְמָ֛הּ וְאֶת־הַיֶּ֖לֶד וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֶ֑הָ וַתֵּ֣לֶךְ וַתֵּ֔תַע בְּמִדְבַּ֖ר בְּאֵ֥ר שָֽׁבַע׃
(14) Early next morning Abraham took some bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar. He placed them over her shoulder, together with the child, and sent her away. And she wandered about in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.
(א) וישכם אברהם בבקר ויקח לחם וחמת מים. היה לו לתת לה כסף וזהב וגמלים נושאים אותם לפי שפע הממון שהיה בבית אברהם, כי בנו היה שהתפלל עליו לו ישמעאל יחיה לפניך. אבל מפני שאמרה לו שרה שיגרש אותו ואת אמו וה' אמר לאברהם כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקולה ע"כ שמע לקול שרה וגרש אותו ואת אמו בלחם וחמת מים כך פירש הרמב"ן ז"ל.
(ב) ויתכן לומר כי מה שגרש אותו בלחם ומים שיכלול ענין אחר, והוא שאברהם ראה במראה הנבואה שעתידים בניו להשתעבד תחת ידי ישמעאל, וכי ישנאו אותם שנאה גדולה שאין אומה בעולם שיהיו שונאים לישראל כבני ישמעאל, וע"כ התנהג אברהם עמו כמו שראוי להתנהג עם השונא ונתן לו לחם ומים, הוא שכתוב (משלי כ״ה:כ״א) אם רעב שונאך האכילהו לחם ואם צמא השקהו מים.
(1) וישכם אברהם בבוקר ויקח לחם וחמת מים, “Avraham rose early in the morning; he took bread and a skin-bottle of water, etc.” He should have given Hagar silver and gold and camels to transport both her, Ishmael, and their belongings seeing he had plenty of money to spare. After all, had he not prayed for his son’s welfare in 17,18 saying to G’d: לו ישמעאל יחיה לפניך, “if only Ishmael live (a good life) in Your presence?” However, seeing that Sarah had told him to expel Hagar and her son, and G’d had told him to obey everything that Sarah said to him (verse 12), Avraham complied and expelled them with the minimum of creature comforts plus a survival kit only. This is Nachmanides’ view. (2) One may view the fact that Avraham provided Hagar with bread and water as an allusion to something that he foresaw concerning the future when his descendants would be oppressed by the Arabs. He foresaw that the Ishmaelites would hate the Jews more than any other nation on earth hated them. Avraham was careful not to deny Hagar and Ishmael the necessities to ensure their survival, something with which Jews provide even their enemies. He modeled himself after Proverbs 25,21 “If your enemy is hungry feed him bread; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.”